I'd understood that Scottish Parliament had recognised that the question of whether or not UK recognises Scottish GRCs is a matter for the UK government. That seems to be clear from this letter.
I think this is the reason for some of the other objections.
Yes, but in the sense that it is up to the UK government to legislate for England (as well as Wales in this case, I think). Westminster can pass legislation de-recognising Scottish GRCs if it wants.
If the Westminster government decides that E&W won't recognise Scottish GRCs, then that objection to the Bill - that a British person's sex could be different north and south of the border, and the issues that'd cause - gains some validity.
Maybe that's something like what they are planning. But I think it would end up in a significant victory for NS and a blow against the union.
If you're right doesn't that exactly illustrate the issue- creating a situation where a UK passport & revised birth certificate can or cannot be issued depending on which side of the border the application is made?
Yes it creates a difference between the rights of trans people north and south of the border. But not really in any novel way. Scotland is its own legal jurisdiction, it has its own marriage laws, Scottish people get free prescriptions and so on. What's the burning issue you are seeing?
I don't know the full ins and outs, but I expect a decent test would be whether your household pays council tax in Scotland or not.
smokedout said:
Differing qualification for a UK passport and birth certificate is somewhat more of an quagmire than those other explicitly devolved policies. This isn't like prescriptions or college fees where differing taxation matters. Nor is it based on centuries old legal traditions, like marriage or whatever.
They could easily live with it if they chose to. But they choose not to and devolution is such a mess that they can always point to an anomaly if they want. Currently Scotland has more democracy than England. The only real solution to this is to have more democracy in England. But that would require Westminster removing powers from Westminster.
Well sure, if London had the same devolved powers as Scotland it could have it's own equalities regime, which would probably be rather different than that in the Home Counties. Perhaps equalities, passports, birth certificates and definitions of woman and man should be decided on a much more parochial basis.
That's interesting. If so, the whole thing is about something very marginal, since almost nowhere will not accept a passport as ID. Maybe it leaves marriage (it would be degrading but not practically insurmountable to be forbidden from marrying in England) and fascinating internet discussions about "what is a woman".
I've read this quite carefully and, although I can tell you side with the UK government, I can't tell exactly why you find the Scottish legislation problematic. Is there some specific opinion you hold that you are, for some reason, reluctant to put into words?
I think you're allowed to get married either way since we have gay marriage now, it's just about whether the marriage certificate says you're a man or a woman.
Yes, correction, you wouldn't be forbidden from marrying in England, but perhaps restricted in terms of where and how you can marry.
(It is, I would suggest, not about having the GRC so much as about having a legal right to your gender. For example, AFAIK, no municipal swimming pool in the UK will tell a trans person to get changed in the room corresponding to their sex at birth. But that's because of policy, and it is not the same as having a right.)
A lot of the objections are very marginal; they rely on a series of assumptions about what might happen in some pretty rare circumstances.
Not really. I'm not very good with words, maybe that's what you're noticing?
Why? Because there are different laws in Scotland? That’s kind of the point of devolution. The different laws aren’t to “troll” Westminster. Not everything is about Westminster.
Ever feel like you're standing, ignored, on the sidelines while everyone else discusses your rights? I do.
Iona's input on this thread hasn't been ignored, and I'm sure yours wouldn't be.
Yes, 'trolling' puts it too strongly. But, notwithstanding that I'm sure they do have a genuine commitment to trans rights, you can't help but think that this outcome probably could and would have been avoided if it hadn't been for both the SNP and Tories wanting to play to their respective bases.
I think I understood the point you made upthread about the complexities of this within Scottish politics. Nonetheless, from this London backstreet it looks like the Sturgeon government trolling, knowing full well that this proposed law will be rejected and that they will be able to present that as overbearing centralisation during their independence campaigning.
I'm simply expressing how i feel.
OK. Well, hopefully, if you do engage with the discussion you'll see that you're not being ignored.
Yeah, well, after 5 years of this shit I'm not quite as ready to jump in to discussions like this any more. But I am watching.
You’re right that devolution isn’t independence. However, the thing about the devolution act is the way it deals with the discussion about what is reserved and what is devolved. And that is that it specifies the reserved powers and then says anything else is assumed to be devolved. In a way it should be called the reserved powers act. It’s not really a surprise that a legislature told its competence is everything else will want to get involved in those matters.
